On this day in 1962, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) stopped Archie Moore.

Moore really did span the ages. He fought a guy who fought for the world middleweight title in 1933 (Teddy Yarosz) and the world heavyweight crown in 1980 (Muhammad Ali). The guy was amazing.

 

Despite previous claims of 1913, it is more generally accepted that Moore was born in 1916 - based on his mother’s recollection and the 1920 census - those two reference points being in agreement.

I wonder if anyone checked the 1930 census to see if Archie’s 1916 YOB still held up? I couldn’t find a head stone for Arch but there are memorial, grave site details on line which accord with the 1916 YOB.

 

I welcome *any* evidence that Moore may have been 3 years younger, but it is overwhelmingly accepted & listed that he was born in 1913.
I again hyperlink the description of the dispute about his age: here it explicitly states in the second bullet point that Moore's Mother contradicted Archie & said he was born in 1913. Which almost all sources tend to give for him.
[url]https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Archie_Moore[/url]

Any Google search will support this evidence.
There is no written dispute to be found anywhere about how his Momma corrected him-& tons of sources tell the story of how he handled it by joking that he was born at 3 years old.
I think this can fairly be taken as a concession that his Mom knew better.
Although it is equally possible that for various practical reasons he may have fudged his age.

Here is one where there is coincidental symmetry to the link above: first see the

This content is protected

website listing that describes the same story about what his Mother corrected him about-his age.
In [url]this obituary[/url] from the U.K.'s Independent.

Even though it would remove a tiny bit of the luster if he boxed so effectively up to "only" just shy of 46 rather than almost 49...
I & many would be happy to see the evidence if any is available.
Although t would mean he turned pro at 18 rather than 21...

Here is an eerie parallel to what young Cassius Clay did years later when he had stones thrown at him for the same training purposes...

Around 1933 Moore joined the [url]Civilian Conservation Corps[/url], working for the forestry division at a camp in [url]Poplar Bluff, Missouri[/url]. Determined to become a boxer, he decided to make his work at the camp a form of training. He later recalled that the other boys constantly kidded him about one daily exercise—standing upright in the bed of a truck as it drove along primitive forest roads, waiting until the last possible moment before ducking or weaving away from tree branches.​

 

That’s a great story Richard I envy you pal meeting an ATG like that and what a man he sounds.

 

Despite an obvious penchant for falsely trying to “correct” others posters (au contraire syndrome), - NO, it is NOT overwhelmingly accepted and listed that Moore was born in 1913.

And NO, any google search will not support that Moore was born in 1913.

One should not be so irresponsible as to make such errant claims with unfounded conviction.

Wikipedia lists Moore as being born 13 December 1916.

Moore’s official DOB as recorded by Cypress View Mausoleum and Crematory is 13 December 1916.

[url]https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/4247/archie-moore[/url]

I have not sighted the 1920 census myself but have read that it apparently details Archie as 3 yo.

@Solomon Deedes kindly provided a contemporary article re the Clay - Liston fight and it clearly states that Archie will be turning 47 shortly.

[url]https://ibb.co/FY3w9Hd[/url]

This LA Times article states there was a line in one ring record book that listed a YOB of 1913.

The article also states that Moores mother said in 1955 that Arch was born 13 Dec 1916, which IS in agreement with the 1920 census.

[url]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-18-sp-11080-story.html[/url]

Tale of the tape for Moore vs Johnson 11 Aug 1954 (incorrectly identified as 1952). Moore turning 38 in that same year = YOB 1916.

[url]https://www.ebay.com/itm/202032395781[/url]

The well known and well regarded old site CBZ also listed Moore’s DOB as 13 December 1916.

 

I'm literally incapable of reading a remark like that without seeing if I can find the records myself.

The 1920 census - taken in January of that year - shows Archie Wright and sister Rachel living with his uncle Cleveland and aunt Willie,. His age is given as 3 years and 2 months, which fits with the claim that he was born in December 1916.

[url]https://ibb.co/vX2R1Qp[/url]

The 1930 census shows him living with the same couple, though by now he has taken the name Moore and is listed as their son. He and his sister are both confusingly only 9 years older than they were 10 years before.

[url]https://ibb.co/FVtNPQX[/url]

 

I did have you in mind when I threw up the 1930 census, lol.

Nice pick up. Hard to make sense between the two censuses. Based on the 1930 census alone, Arch’s YOB would be 1917.

Just one question: is it open for anyone to access the census details as you have done - and if so, what site did you use and what specific enquiry did you make? (eg- just by name?).

Thanks in advance if you can answer that.

 

I appreciate evidence being provided.
I & anyone disagreeing with me often "correct" others-& me, rightly or wrongly.
It is good for civil discourse & general ethics to feel very secure with different opinions.
The penchant & problem is pathologizing others fo

This content is protected

doing so.
Or writing with conviction, & with unintentional hypocrisy insulting anyone else for having a different conviction.

Anywho, to the actual facts in question...
I linked a Wikipedia article that like many other sources gives Moore's birthday story as Mom saying it was 1916, Archie jesting about it.
It would be unfair-wrong-to assume that a mistake is a moral flaw, but it is easy to see that Wikipeda actually lists Moore's birthday the conventional way: 12/13/13. Right in the basic stats on the right hand side.

This content is protected

it is easy for someone else to discover that the body of the article starts with the 1916 date!
Only an eagle eye, &/or the grist of valuable debate where the matter is researched to confirm, might find both dates listed in the same article.

So nobody is at fault for seeing it either way: & the website is generally accurate: but not as accurate or reliable as some other sources lol!
Now investigating further, the actual very first citation there is for that later birthday: but it goes back to the Independent obituary: which I linked & that anonymous author was

This content is protected

-again it just provides the story about Mom sayin' 1913, Moore, not disagreeing but joking that he was born at 3..,So 1916 is not supported there.


NOW THEN we have a further mystery to cooperatively kindly solve.
I saw that the e-bay AND the Ali-Liston link different folks provided showed that he would be a year YOUNGER.

This content is protected

I detected this before I just saw the post by you, SolomonDeedes-referencing 1917 claim- supported by the 1930 census!
This was easy because since Moore was born near the end of the year, he was almost certainly younger than born in 1917 IF the claims of his age then were accurate.

So no it is really unclear what might be correct.
But at least we can address HOW those 2 sources got 1917? Did they actually see or research the 1930 census (unlikely I think)...Or is there other evidence to uncover that supports Moore being even a bit less ancient?

However understand that it becomes more unlikely to be true dating the younger we get...
Because if say 1917 is right, Archie turned pro at 17!
Certainly possible, but quite unusual-even 18 is very young.

 

I went via genealogybank.com which is a paysite, but familysearch.org is also a good choice - you have to make an account but it's free, and besides the censuses they have a lot of other obscure stuff like passport applications and military draft cards.

I searched on Cleveland Moore since he was the head of the household, and restricted it to Missouri. Obviously with something like this you have to be careful that you've got the right Archie Moore, but fortunately he talked about his uncle Cleveland and aunt Willie in interviews so he was easier to identify than some.

 

I edited my post to credit & refer to your info thanks man.
I did see with other links an age a year YOUNGER supported-but then saw your research.
I have no idea what date is correct now.
But if 1917 is, then Moore would have turned pro at a very young age-17.

Also some sources say he had 199 fights, box rec shows 219-Wikipedia lists 220.

 

Symbolic fight- two of a kind.

 

Mucho equivocations and extrications.

Same old.

Pathologizing? Now there’s a strong and hyper- sensitive, reactive labelling.

And that label has also been put on constant repeat of late.

One may call it whatever they like but it is perfectly acceptable and accurate to identify the penchant as described.

If one “views” that as pathologizing - then one has been “pathologizing” left, right and centre themselves in the face of many posters. “What’s good for the goose….”

It also desperate to falsely accuse the other party of hypocrisy when it clearly isn’t applicable or true.

Finally, one should also check their contrary interpretations for “polite” - you can’t apply one lax definition to “outgoings” while applying a different and notably hyper-sensitive definition to “incomings”.

Returning to the subject at hand after the scenic route meanderings…….

 

Thanks Solomon. Excellent investigative work and your being well informed in the first instance lent heavily to procuring the right person. The provision of that info (images included) is very much appreciated. It would be nice to have two consecutive censuses that actually support/agree with one another for a change (see the Liston saga), lol.

 

I like it!

 

I use ancestry.com Familysearch is very frustrating for me tbh. Also ancestry.com has yearbook photos which I don't think any other of these historical records sites have.